Police targeting trivial crimes

#41
Well... I think that I can safely state that the core of the problem is NUoo Lie-bour. They are the Problem, not the Solution.

When Governments set targets, then People become Victims, and that is certainly true. I have always throught that Blair, Brown and Pals are all suffering from a form of 'Collective Obssesional Behaviour Disorder' with their culture of Targets, Performance Indicators and general Bullsh*te. This permeates everythingt they touch, not just the Police and Criminal Justice System.

I think that ACPO, the Cheif Officers association can see which way the poltical wind is blowing, that Labour are screwed!! So they, ACPO might as well start the roll-back of Nu Labour rot while there is still time before the Dip-sticks, Numpties and Idiots complete their take over of society.

No doubt a few Home Orifice Ministers and Senior Civil Servants Mandarins will make noises of disaproval and make vague threats around cutting police budgets, not for the first time.

The writing is on the wall, it looms large for thee Pa Broone... so why dont you go and see HM The Queen and do the right thing and call a date for an early election. :) :? :roll:
 
#42
Nu Liabor seems bent upon destroying British Society and rebuilding it in it's own image.Targets seem part of that process.Everyone has rights,we are constantly told,but no one seems to know of their responsabilities.The family unit has been destroyed,fathers marginalised,and 'new' forms of relationship promoted,by politicians determined to desecrate the past.Quangos have been promoted,at great cost to the taxpayer,to oversee the target driven culture,but things have not got any better as a result.That is a legacy of Nu Liabor thinking.Until now,some people thought that there had been improvements in education,the NHS etc,but cruel spin doctors are now unable to persuade the electorate that this government has improved anything.Change or chaos? We now have both in our country.
 
#43
Targets are a universally accepted mechanism for performance monitoring and effective management, and constantly whinging about the concept merely serves to fuel public scepticism as to whether they are getting reasonable value for their money.

And any politician, whatever side they are on, that isn't seen to appear concerned about what the public think is unlikely to enjoy their ride on the gravy train of government for very long.

Whether the right targets are being set for the police is a matter for debate. The measurement of crime resolutions (or "clear up rates") is a simplistic and unrealistic measure, for not all crimes have an equal impact on society. Either crimes are therefore "graded" so that meaningful performance statistics can be produced or the present system scrapped altogether and a better means of measuring effectiveness introduced.

Yet everyone has a different perspective as to what constitutes desirable policing. Some would say, for example, that they want the numbers of reported crimes to fall, others might say that they want to see policemen patrolling the streets more often, and others still may say they want to see less (or even more) armed police, the variations are endless.

Just as I believe that some form of performance monitoring is both inevitable and desirable, I also believe that the methodology needs very careful evaluation. I believe that politicians have put the cart before the horse in setting these targets, and should start paying heed to both the public and those actually entrusted to do the job, instead of employing highly paid private management consultants to tell us how to do things.

It would certainly be a good start to putting things right if the police were seen to consult more openly with the public, they might find that there are more of us on their side than opposed to them.
 
#44
I would say, Fug to the targets and have police performance done by a poll of council tax payers. The question should be something like:-

Are you satisfied by your police force? 1=bad, 10=perfect.

Do that once per year. Let us have the police force we want and are already paying for.
 
#45
We shouldn't be running services just to meet performance indicators and targets, especially if they mean nothing.

One example (from the medical world) was introduced to the Army. 'All soldiers are to have a blood pressure recorded on their electronic records'
I asked how frequently we were to take blood pressure and how old a record we could add to the computerised database. It didn't matter, so long as they had one recorded then tick in the box. A blood pressure recorded from when someone was 17 at their initial medical was ok, despite that person now being 29 and not needing a PULHHEEMS till they are 30. The blood pressure from 12 years ago doesn't really tell us anything. It was just a total waste of time, but an easy tick in the box for us to achieve so the management went for it. Quick and easy targets that result in several ticks in boxes can be done in the time it takes to do one of the more complicated or labour intensive ones, I suspect that the Police (as well as many other target led organisations) have management that take this route.
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#46
Why not adopt the US system and have an elected Chief Constable? Elected every 2-3 years. Perform or lose your job
 
#47
I would say, Fug to the targets and have police performance done by a poll of council tax payers.
Having council tax payers vote on a form is still a target, albeit more in the form of a popularity contest.

If this were applied standards of policing would vary enormously from one area to another. What's acceptable in Toxteth or Brixton won't be tolerated in, say, Kensington or Mayfair?
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#48
Where do you start? I'd like to see us being able to elect Chief Constables, but the Government would never allow this as it would empower the people and allow nigh on unprecidented support for the elected Officer. It would deny politicans the ability to manipulate individuals and would see the death of the 'careerist' and their 'targets', therefore it will never happen.
 
#49
pyrogenica said:
I would say, Fug to the targets and have police performance done by a poll of council tax payers.

Having council tax payers vote on a form is still a target, albeit more in the form of a popularity contest.


If this were applied standards of policing would vary enormously from one area to another. What's acceptable in Toxteth or Brixton won't be tolerated in, say, Kensington or Mayfair?
Damned right it is. A popularity contest by the people that pay for them. Is that a bad thing? Should we pay for a force that we do not want?
 
#50
I don't think it's the targets system that is necessarily wrong, it's only unpopular with those who have to work with it, the tax payers are fairly happy to see where their money is going.

It's more a situation of our becoming obsessed with targets to the extent that minor crimes get equal priority to serious crimes, and how those targets are set.

Personally, I would hate to see yet another opportunity for political grandstanding in the local community, where the most popular (who is not necessarily the most effective) gets the plum job.

As for local policing, I'm all for that if consistent standards are applied. Not much point have a law against drug use enforced in one borough and not in another.
 
#51
pyrogenica said:
I don't think it's the targets system that is necessarily wrong, it's only unpopular with those who have to work with it, the tax payers are fairly happy to see where their money is going.

It's more a situation of our becoming obsessed with targets to the extent that minor crimes get equal priority to serious crimes, and how those targets are set.

Personally, I would hate to see yet another opportunity for political grandstanding in the local community, where the most popular (who is not necessarily the most effective) gets the plum job.
Have you gone mad? Read what you wrote!

The targets are set by national government.. People that do not live in the same environment as most citizens....Tax payers are everyone that works and pays PAYE....ON the whole we do not see where exactly our tax goes!
 
#52
Perturbed said:
Have you gone mad? Read what you wrote!

The targets are set by national government.. People that do not live in the same environment as most citizens....Tax payers are everyone that works and pays PAYE....ON the whole we do not see where exactly our tax goes!
No, I haven't gone mad. You just haven't read what I wrote previously:

Just as I believe that some form of performance monitoring is both inevitable and desirable, I also believe that the methodology needs very careful evaluation. I believe that politicians have put the cart before the horse in setting these targets, and should start paying heed to both the public and those actually entrusted to do the job, instead of employing highly paid private management consultants to tell us how to do things.
Setting national police standards through the use of local popularity contests will simply result in inconsistent policing, whereas setting meaningul national standards will ensure that everyone knows what to expect.
 
#53
pyrogenica said:
Perturbed said:
Have you gone mad? Read what you wrote!

The targets are set by national government.. People that do not live in the same environment as most citizens....Tax payers are everyone that works and pays PAYE....ON the whole we do not see where exactly our tax goes!
No, I haven't gone mad. You just haven't read what I wrote previously:

Just as I believe that some form of performance monitoring is both inevitable and desirable, I also believe that the methodology needs very careful evaluation. I believe that politicians have put the cart before the horse in setting these targets, and should start paying heed to both the public and those actually entrusted to do the job, instead of employing highly paid private management consultants to tell us how to do things.
Setting national police standards through the use of local popularity contests will simply result in inconsistent policing, whereas setting meaningul national standards will ensure that everyone knows what to expect.
[devils advocate hat on]
If the local force was set its standards by the local population then the service would possilby be tailored to the local situation. Perhaps they would be able to spend time and resources on the types of crime that are prevelent in that area, or that which causes most distress to the locals. A business wouldn't provide a service that wasn't geared towards its customers, why should the Police be geared towards that which someone else (from outside the area) thinks they should be doing?

[devils advocate hat off/]
 
#54
Why should policing be consistent? Crime isn't.

In fact, why should any services be nationally consistent? They should be what the local populus wants - which may or may not be the same as their neighbours - not some meaningless national standard. It is this drive to centralise and standardise that has destroyed local democracy, closed local schools and hospitals and led to the the appearance of the trypanasoma-causing tsetse fly on Britain's streets. (OK I made the last one up).

Pyro - KPI/target culture is b0llocks, as any fule kno.
 
#55
Interesting views, and this makes for interesting debate.

From my perspective (and I probably haven't given it enough thought) I would have thought that it was inconsistency that is destroying the health service. For example, regional policies that deny people the life saving drugs they need, richer area health authorities offering people diagnostic tests that other areas couldn't afford, etc.

Crime isn't consistent, I agree, but if one area has a less rigid attitude to drug use, then all the junkies migrate there and make life hell for everyone.

Whereas crime is inconsistent, law is the opposite, as it should be. It is as unlawful to deal crack in Harrow as it is in Newcastle.

I have to agree that local accountability is a good thing, though, any accountability must be better than what we are seeing at the present. And some sort of performance measure - albeit a better model than we have now - is no more than the people who pay for policing actually deserve.
 
#56
I'm sure nobody is saying that the law shouldn't be applied fairly, but that different areas have different needs. Certain types of recorded crime will be higher in one place compared to another. It would be interesting to see how each force used its resources if they were given the chance to work for the local community rather than to some ideal dreamed up in an ivory tower totally distanced from reality.
Other than an easy job for when I'm in civi street I can't see the purpose of PCSO's. Could they be used more efficiently, or at least be seen by the public in a more positive light if they locals had a say in how they were used, and how many there were? Would PCSO's be better off trained up to do admin work for 'real' coppers and free them up for the streets? Would that be legal? Would it be worth trying?
How would we ask the local population for their opinions? Would we risk allowing certain people in the population to influence the police? Would we be seeing headlines in the red tops screaming that 'religious nutters stop police from entering ghetto'?
 
#57
pyrogenica said:
Perturbed said:
Have you gone mad? Read what you wrote!

The targets are set by national government.. People that do not live in the same environment as most citizens....Tax payers are everyone that works and pays PAYE....ON the whole we do not see where exactly our tax goes!
No, I haven't gone mad. You just haven't read what I wrote previously:
Sorry, I could have worded my reply better had I bothered to take the time. I do not think that police performance should be weighed and measured by people in Whitehall. IMO, the local populace should be the people that measure police performance. National standards may be desirable but they are secondary to local requirements/wishes. In My Opinion.
 
#58
If all Special constables quit or if the parishes hold elections for constables the Home Office powers (in spite of all the statutes quoted on this thread) to appoint or influence copnstables would be lost to government.

The powers of govt to appoint constables are only on loan from the people by default to hold parish elections.

If we take our power back then govt would have a load of statutes effecting no one.

All they could do is institute policing by government employees which would be treason.

Good thread though.
 
#59
There again the law setting up the CPS is treasonous because it limits them to serving the 42 Home Office (uniformed civil servant fiasco) Police forces.

Crown and Parliament same old story. Government getting too up itself.

HM the Q needs to make situation clear.

Constables are independent ministerial officers of the Crown they swear to serve the Queen who is sole fount of justice and their authority is from the Crown (The union of monarch and parishes of the people).

Police Officers just do what I did tell the Home Office to f-ck off (I did this via Special Branch intefering in one of my duties) resign the paid service and conduct the duties of the constable in the case after leaving the Police. You retain powers of arrest of a constable.

Leaving the Police is only to leave a source of payment for exercising duties as a constable. You don't stop being a constable just because you leave the police.

It is the constitutional position.

You stop being a constable in one of two ways

Unswear the oath (which would only stop any further duties being charged but you cannot unswear the duty already charged or that would be treason) or Die

Magna Carta et seq
 

Top